The Wikipedia-Short-Selling scandal widens.

[formercia]

http://www.deepcapture.com/

--snip--

As it turns out, there is a law, known as the “options market maker exemption”, which permits certain brokerages, specifically those registered as ‘options market makers’, to engage in a highly-controlled form of naked short selling in the course of bona fide options market making – comparable to the permission police officers have to exceed the speed limit under certain extreme circumstances when it’s in everybody’s best interest that they do so.

Naked short sellers have discovered that they can essentially “rent” the options market maker exemption from certain corrupt options market makers, producing massive amounts of counterfeit shares in the process.

-snip--

What does this have to do with Jimbo Wales?

Well it turns out that both he and former Wikimedia Foundation trustee Michael Davis used to work at Chicago Options Associates, where Wales was a research director and Davis was CEO.

--snip--


Byrne is tightening the screws...

[formercia]

1. Try this again..n/t

[On the Road]

2. Had Never Seen That Blog

Here's some interesting background, though:



Overstock.com was basically killed by a short-selling campaign. Hope he is able to keep this issue alive and stop the abuses.

[formercia]

3. Welcome

One more set of eyeballs. :hi:

[On the Road]

7. Are You Associated with Deep Capture?

Just wondered if you have any special insight or perspective on the issue.

I am not against shorting selling per se, but it's obviously been used for speculative schemes that have been very destructive in some cases.

[formercia]

8. No, just an interested observer

watching how Organized Crime plays the 'System.'

[autorank]

4. I read about this

What a privilege -- renting options -- and the people from whom they've been "rented" don't even get to know. Maybe they're using the options at the same time.

Cool, where do we sign up;)

Excellent Post - Byrne is the real deal.

[formercia]

9. You have to 'Make your bones' first.

JSOC is always looking for a few good men. ;)

[myrna minx]

5. K&R. Thanks for the link. n/t

[formercia]

21. You're welcome.

:hi:

[leftstreet]

6. K&R

Thanks for posting this

[anigbrowl]

10. Here we go again

I feel obliged to point out that Byrne is a winger, and that his crusade against short-selling may be somewhat influenced by the abysmal stock price of the company he runs. Read it all (if you have the patience), draw your own conclusions, but also ask yourself what sort of person buys exclusive distribution rights for 'Farenhype 9/11' in order to send copies to troops in Iraq.

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/truth_for_troops

[formercia]

11. Thanks for the kick.

:hi:

[anigbrowl]

14. So, no response to documented examples of Byrne's winger tendencies, eh?

I admire your childlike faith in his objectivity.

[formercia]

15. I'm in my second childhood.

and thanks for the kick. :hi:

[readmoreoften]

16. Ad hominem argument. I don't care if he's a right-winger. Everyone on Wall St. is a "rightwinger"

by my definition. I've read deep capture almost in its entirety and Byrne's ally, a former reporter for CJR--the most respected authority on journalism in the US (if we're doin' adhoms)-- does an excellent job of connecting dots and linking evidence. Byrne explained Cramer's practices before Jon Stewart helped confirm them in public. No left source could really articulate what Byrne has explained, since few leftists have insider experience running corporations. That doesn't mean that we can't watch how the big ones devour the little ones. Byrne is a little one.

i.e.: if someone under Hitler spoke publicly about secret camps being planned in the 1930s, it wouldn't be smart to discredit his charge simply because he's a Nazi. When someone in the mob testifies, no one says "Why should we listen to him? He's in the mob."

[SlipperySlope]

12. If you want to see the real face of Wikipedia

If you want to see the real face of Wikipedia, try posting some of the information that these researchers have uncovered. Much of it is independently corroborated, and much of it should be allowed under the "neutral point of view" policy, but try it and you'll find your hand slapped or worse.

These are banned people. Their knowledge is banned knowledge. Even if you come across it independently and honestly, it is prohibited from Wikipedia.

[anigbrowl]

13. LOLOL

If you want to see the real face of Wikipedia (and Byrne) read the talk pages for things like 'naked short selling' and others, and marvel at how a small group of people with money can carry their personal feud all over the internet. You do know that the journalist (I use the term loosely) who was abusing wikipedia on an even greater scale than Byrne's colleague was also permanently banned, and some articles locked from casual editing in order to prevent a recurrence of this abuse, yes?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive426#Mantanmoreland_and_Bassettcat

Doubtless you can explain why Byrne is able to keep positng there on a regular basis and gets a reasonable hearing as long as he stays off his 'wall of text' rants. I read all of the wikipedia discussions over this stuff months ago (which took most of a weekend). There is no big wikipedia conspiracy, despite what you read on Deep Capture.

Go on, read through the link above and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Naked_short_selling - if certain ideas are prohibited from Wikipedia, how come Patrick Byrne gets to keep discussing them?

For that matter, how come the people most eager to sign up to a conspiracy theory always seem to be most averse to doing any of their own research?

[readmoreoften]

17. How does being banned from a site disprove that a site is silencing information?

I'm sure that Wikipedia isn't a vast conspiracy. That doesn't mean its owners don't have their own financial interests or aren't under pressure from those who do. Whether or not Byrne is nutty and/or overbearing is irrelevant. Naked shorting is either a problem or it isn't. Taking a calm rhetorical pose doesn't make your argument superior to someone who rants and raves. A calm demeanor only wins trophies for your debate team.

If you have evidence that naked shorting is impossible or beyond reasonable doubt and that Byrne has invented the concept to cover his own failures, please, I am open to hearing counter-arguments. But a REAL argument with data and useful information is needed, not dismissive character assassinations of those who "rant."

[New Dawn]

18. LOL, fuck Wikipedia.

There are too many right-wingers there anyway.

[Jim Lane]

19. This is nothing short of McCarthyism

You can go to Wikipedia and read the whole history of the dispute about the naked short selling article. It's an extraordinarily transparent decision-making process.

Instead of pointing to any actual malfeasance by anyone, you say that there's a regulation that applies to some people in the options field, that some of those people allowed their position to be used in a way that you dislike (although you don't say it violated the law), and then -- here's the clincher -- two members of the Wikimedia board used to work in the options field.

Let me guess what's coming next: "I have in my hand a list of 52 known options traders who have edited Wikipedia...."

[formercia]

20. Nice try.

No cigar.

[Jim Lane]

22. Thank you for proving my point.

Faced with disagreement, you fail to offer any substantive response, relying instead on belittling and deriding the person making the argument. That also is a hallmark of McCarthyism.

[formercia]

23. another ism....

Read the article. If you had, you would have phrased your initial question differently, i'm sure.

I can keep this going as long as you like.

[Jim Lane]

24. Thank you, but I did read the article.

And I'm sure you can keep it going indefinitely, what with not needing to present any facts or logic.

Meanwhile, for all your sniping at Wikipedia, the latest news is that Microsoft is folding Encarta because Wikipedia is kicking its butt. of U.S. internet visits to encyclopedia websites showed Wikipedia with 96.69% of the total, and Encarta a somewhat distant second at 1.27%. My personal opinion -- admittedly biased because I'm an active Wikipedian -- is that progressives should spend less time criticizing Wikipedia and more time improving it. It's true that, as New Dawn said in #18 in this thread, there are too many right-wingers at Wikipedia, but we can and should change that.